Tuesday, 6 May 2014

The Case of Baroness Barker - Two bills -Two Opportunities

“Please supply your
evidence that the individuals named below have furthered their own interests.
Please supply as much detail as you have. Thank you, Liz Barker”

The
Liberal Democrat peer, Baroness Barker wrote
these words after she and all her fellow peers had received a list
of parliamentarians and their financial links to companies and individuals
involved in healthcare.

The list of over 200 parliamentarians had proved annoying to the Baroness,
especially because at the time, they were all debating, amending and voting on
the bill to help it become an Act.

One month after the legislation gained Royal Ascent, the Baroness incorporated a consultancy company, which she
co-owns and that works with the third sector to assist in their quest for NHS
contracts.

The company, Barker & Woodward Consultancy Limited offers advice to
third sector organisations through a two-day course called the “the right prescription”.
This service offers
information on how ‘third sector organisations can constructively work for the
NHS’ and advice about ‘competitors
and development of strategic partnerships.’

The “right prescription” can cost up to £400, which fits into Ms Barker’s personal request
that we supply ‘as much detail’ that we have that ‘individuals’ have ‘furthered
their own interests’.

Baroness Barker was the Spokesperson on Health for the Liberal Democrats up until 2010 and has since
remained a member of their Health and Social Care Team. She herself debated,
made multiple key amendments and voted on the Health and Social Care bill, helping
it become an Act.
One of the amendments drafted by Ms Barker during the Health bill progress, was
in the area of conflicts of interests. It read"CCGs must make arrangements for managing
conflicts and potential conflicts of interest in such a way as to ensure that
they do not, and do not appear to, affect the integrity of the group's
decision-making processes". She concluded “It is extremely important that
these groups not only set out to uphold the highest standards but that they are
seen to uphold them.”
The ability to see into the future is a skill all good entrepreneurs’ must
have, but perhaps when you are producing the legislation, it is easier to know
what lies ahead. One month after today’s Care bill hearing, Ms Barker’s company
is offering a briefing on its content in exchange for money
to the third sector.

The third sector is playing a key role in
the dismantling of the NHS, acting as a Trojan horse to allow private
healthcare companies to come in and take over the running of services. They lobbied
alongside private health for Jeremy Hunt to not water down privatisation
regulations, they lied when they said they were neutral
over the outcome of the Health bill, and their Chief Executive acted as a handy
inside
man at a critical moment in the health bill’s progress. The reward for the
third sector has been 70% of all NHS contracts awarded since the implementation
of the Health Act, have gone to private firms.

The Code of conduct that all Members sign up to
states that ‘Holders of public office should take
decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in
order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their
family, or their friends.’

The loop-hole that allows Members of both Houses to vote on legislation when
they have a financial interest is ridiculous. Now Ms Barker is about to vote on
the Care bill, helping it to become an Act and then one month later gain
revenue from imparting that information.

Local councillors must abide by a stricter
regime, which is imposed on them by parliament. If they have a financial or
non-financial interest, then they must
neither ‘participate in any discussion of the matter at the meeting’ nor ‘participate
in any vote, or further vote.’

Currently the
government has no intention to reform the rules that govern their own working
life. In response to a petition placed on the No10 website that demanded ‘No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate
on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in
which they have a financial interest’, they replied that it would “not be
practical” to introduce any curbs to such behaviour because a “significant number of legislative provisions in any year may have
beneficial financial implications for all or most commercial operations.”

Exactly!

See the latest list of parliamentary recent
or present financial interests to healthcare here.

1 comment:

Sorry to see no comments here.However "no comment" is probably the best comment one could make.Your clear and well written article exposes the corruption and nepotism of these people.This is exactly the sort of information we need.After having just read "The Plot against the NHS", "NHS SOS" and "NHS plc" I'm already speechless at just how much damage has already been done to the NHS - not just by the Tories but also by New Labour.